Whether it was a moment of truth or a moment of mayhem and chaos - dirty politics style, is anyone's guess and it will take more than the three days between now and the election to come to grips with what is alleged.
The big top game show lettering on the panel harked back to the Nixon era of political intrigue and it has been a long time since I can remember gathering the whanau together to watch a political discussion - but there we were. Swinging and engaged voters all. Dotcom's histrionic giggling in the background didn't help in focusing on what the implications are for a small country that appears to not have the full story on most of what we are supposed to be voting on.
If, as Nicky Hager suggests a Minister of Justice helped fuel personal attacks on the CEO of the Serious Fraud Office, how much faith does that leave in the integrity of the system as a whole to be able to monitor and eliminate corruption?
Why should we trust a Prime Minister who apparently is admitting to setting up a system which could, theoretically monitor what we have spoken about, to whom and for how long - and then decide in a magnanimous sweeping and apparently unilateral gesture that it was too invasive?
Are we expected to believe that the decision not to go ahead resulted from a passing caprice rather than robust parliamentary debate? Shouldn't we at least have been, er ... asked first? It seems that this has been a conversation between insiders and yet an invites-only style of democratic participation seems to have been the hallmark of National Inc.
